The Chinese like Hu Jin Tao and Wen Jiabao are the world's top financial terrorists cum Climate terrorists

4:49 am December 28, 2009

island wrote:

I don't care what anybody says, China's refusal to be monitored, and their insistence that we "trust them" to do the right thing reeks of deception and lies.

6:20 am December 28, 2009

kelana wrote:

"However, as is nearly always the case, Beijing’s public relations counteroffensive appears to be too little too late." One must well remember that regardless the present financial & economy crisis, the world is much dominated by those MAINSTREAM MEDIA... no wonder the louder voices heard are what orchestrated by them! Just recall the bitter facts!

6:59 am December 28, 2009

sheng wrote:

typical western lies and hypocrisy. per capita the us and the west far pollutes more than china. historically west and us pollutes in total amount by far exceeds china.

this whole thing smells like western lies and only people who believe bs is in the western media.
the us and the west are like two fat guys who have eaten everything past 100 years and the starving kids like china and india isn't even getting its fair share, yet these fat guys are asking the two skinniest guys to eat less while the fat guys continue to eat more than their share.

the us and the west is basically asking the two poorest people to flip for the bill. its like american tax system but instead of the rich paying for the highest share of the taxes, its the whole oppiste where the rich ask the poorest guys to pay for the whole thing in per capita bases.

please keep up with the good lies.

this goes for darfur and tibet etc.. if you people really care about them. stop giving native americans casinos give them their land back, and reparations to decedents of african slaves. wait you people really don't care!! only reason you people say this is when a none white power finally maybe challenges the white man in his own game. you guys try to change the name the rules of the game.

7:38 am December 28, 2009

DJC wrote:

The US negotiators knew that Chinese government would never accept foreign legal authority within China on CO2 emissions. Would Americans accept Chinese government legal authority in the United States? The entire Copenhagen talks were an absolute farce. On a per capita basis, the US produces 4 times the amount of CO2 gases than China, but the Chinese are scapegoated by the Washington Consensus elites as always irresponsible.

8:19 am December 28, 2009

Jack C. wrote:

The US political class hates the Chinese and will grab at any opportunity to denounce the Chinese. Now the Chinese are even blamed for weather effects around the planet.

8:33 am December 28, 2009

David Smith wrote:

China pay for China's "green up". USA pay for USA's "green up". Other countries the same. What is left to disagree about?

9:08 am December 28, 2009

Rajendra Kumar wrote:

@David Smith. Correct. In that case let there be an international technical commission who will calculate the total polution generated by each country during last 100 years. One can not get away from past crime. Indians and Chinese did not invent coal fired engines or oil fired cars or even nuclear fission. India and China had the greenest of economies before Europeans destroyed it. There is no way, west has to learn how to live within their means.

9:24 am December 28, 2009

lurenyi wrote:

Divide and conque, again?

11:15 am December 28, 2009

Yamabuki wrote:

The blame game is being played to cover up the fact that regardless of what was decided, It's pretty much too late to avert the global warming crisis, if you believe in that scenario.

Blaming China is really meaningless. We are all to blame.

China, US, Europe, Asia, and the rest of us are all playing the game in our human nature fashion.

Unless we can change our basic nature (rather unlikely), we will continue down the road we have followed for the last 900,000 to 2 million years.

The world won't end if Humanity dies out.

11:37 am December 28, 2009

anonymous wrote:

China did in the end agree to be monitored internationally. Their main concern was if they agreed to be monitored the "carbon police" would come in and tell them how to run their economy hence the "sovereignty" issue, though the Western media tended to be very vague on that front.

I certaintly agree the Western narrative tends to isolate China as the lone man out and the main stumbling point. Also the now famous Guardian opinion piece also casts China as the lone hold out, vetoing binding emission targets; just as this blog concludes Beijing needs to work with others if it needs to defeat that "lone man" narrative. In a general sense for world affairs it may ring true on certain matters but for Copenhagen it certaintly wasn't true as ABC Australia points out:

"India has confirmed it worked with China and other emerging nations to ensure there were no legally binding targets from the Copenhagen climate talks."

Lu's message is cautious, yet reasoned as always. One may quibble with some of the details (for instance China surely has long since been portrayed as in a league of the own). But the basic point is strong: China is beginning to find its voice. Russia has long had this voice, but there has been no substance, no weight, behind it. No so with China. It will be interesting to see if China learns to use its soft power (a commodity underestimated by EVERYONE else) and to what extent it will be benign or otherwise. This is just the beginning.

11:41 am December 28, 2009

anonymous wrote:

Forgot to add that in the end I think a main problem comes down again to Beijing public relations failure.

11:46 am December 28, 2009

be fair & honest wrote:

The European countries worked in concert to demonize China and undermine her development. They were trying to fool the world using the Global Warming theory backed by the falsified data by their scientists. It is shame.

12:11 pm December 28, 2009

Be just and truthful wrote:

Narrative shmarrative. What counts are truth and fact. "Narrative" is just a PR shell game. What China or anyone else did or didn't do is not a matter of some post-event covering "narrative," but of fact. Item one: Wen was there to play head games with Obama.

12:19 pm December 28, 2009

good for you wrote:

why should the chines waste their bucks on PR? it's just propaganda.
our own govt spends BILLIONS each year on PR and we still don't believe a word they say.

Al Gore is a fraud,
WMD's were a fraud,
the Iraq war is a fraud,
Tonkin a fraud
going to get Osama Bin Laden's a fraud
now it's proven single payer healthcare is a fraud, they want to push for mandatory purchase of private health insurance,

It seems that large international conventions such as those convened by the UN inevitably throw the spotlight onto big powers that eschew international agreements when these do not seem conducive to the national interest. On other occasions, these same powers demand international solidarity when it seems useful to them.

The hostility that China meets internationally is partly the result of China’s international behaviour. At times it portrays itself as a poor developing country that needs international technology transfer (for free) in order to combat climate change and clean up its environment. Yet, it has an ambitious space programme and has just inaugurated the world’s fastest train that connects Guangzhou and Wuhan. It has also been working hard to persuade the EU and the USA to grant it market economy status to prevent the application of anti-dumping measures under WTO rules, which China deems unfair.

All these are different policy fields, but it creates confusion and irritation. It is also up to the Chinese government to bring light into its strategies. The more it rises, the more it should explain. It seems however that China only does what any other country would do that has the capability to act unilaterally or bilaterally: form useful international alliances and prevent entanglement into a net of international treaties that would limit its capability to look after itself.

2:09 pm December 28, 2009

bob wrote:

"The “China hijacking the climate deal” narrative had been widely circulated and the world had largely moved on to other news by the time Beijing’s version of events was published—an indication, by the way, that at least in terms of soft power capabilities China is still far from graduating from developing country status."
---
A) Soft power is about a little more than your ability to spread your propaganda.
B) it tells you something about the mechanics between the "free" press and western goverments
C) its not exactly news that whenever the west talk about "the world", it really just means themselves. I bet Beijing's propanda reached more people on this planet than the Guardian.

11:39 am December 29, 2009

LEE wrote:

First, China's power is exaggerated, by imagination, or intendedly. The country is on longer a developing country in traditional sense, but it still bears numerous charaters of developing countries. But China is far from 'graduation' from the third world.

Second, It just takes time for politicians in the west to accept China's rising power. US, espcially Obama Admin. is taking a more realistic approach towards China. But Europeans are not ready to accept China as an equal player with them. Quite understood, Europeans have stood at the centre of the world for so long, even on US, they do not take it as a real world leader, from the bottom of their heart. How can they do it on China?

Last, the Britons are just jealous about the final deal in Copenhagen, reached by a few developing countries with US, not with the Empire. Do not think the Britons dislike the Copenhagen Accord per se, they just do not like the process. If Brown or Miliband was in the meeting room, even they acted as a rubber stamp following US, they will surly shut up now.

8:56 pm December 29, 2009

concepts wrote:

Well, this might all be true but I simply don't think the message “China wrecked the Copenhagen deal” was as widely believed as we might have imagined. I saw far more sympathetic comments to that article.

4:42 am December 30, 2009

Taijun wrote:

It takes time to know who is sincere and who is just playing politics.
We trust China’s efforts and promises in Copenhagen.

6:54 am December 31, 2009

Lee wrote:

"scapegoat" is the word rising from my mind after reading the narrative about china. China played a representative role of developing countries including Brazil and India, ect in Copenhagen. It is exceptionally difficult to cater for all tastes in such a complicated situation to balance everyone's benefits.

2:09 am January 2, 2010

头脑简单 wrote:

考虑问题时把中国作为一个人而不是一群异质性很高的人来看待本身就是一种逻辑错误。

6:55 pm January 3, 2010

Sally wrote:

"Non-Governmental Organisations in China: The Rise of Dependent Autonomy” I haven't read the book, and I have no intention of doing so. The title borders on nonsense. In case you didn't notice, China doesn't need saving. I can imagine China becoming insulative after it has satisfied the needs of the states policy.

7:00 pm January 3, 2010

Sally wrote:

LEE wrote

First, China’s power is exaggerated, by imagination, or intendedly. The country is on longer a developing country in traditional sense, but it still bears numerous charaters of developing countries. But China is far from ‘graduation’ from the third world.

First, this site says "We welcome thoughtful comments from readers". It is a shame that none of the comments here have followed that requirement of respect.
Yiyi, as a specialist on Chinese international communications, public diplomacy and soft power, I cannot comment on the overall thrust of your argument. I did not follow the Copenhagen conference in detail and I am certainly not a specialist in climate change or development politics. I do share your final comments on the communications strategy. China is repeatedly failing to develop a coherent and logical strategy of public diplomacy and international communications, and depends far too much on instruments of communications that are not effective at all (CCTV 9, the Confucious Institutes etc). However, I would add that just countering narratives will not help. From a communications point of view the way the Chinese delegation conducted themselves in Copenhagen did not help their cause, and as usual it seems that the Chinese government wants to be part of the international community but not responsible to it (China is not alone in this, I should add - look at the US/UK and Iraq). However, even the best communciations strategies can not sell a defective policy, and I think that China has to get the latter right before concentrating on the former.

1:22 am February 6, 2010

jtfct wrote:

The West wil never accept and tolerate China's rise even if China is a democratic country embracing Western values beacuse their long held racial hatred of the Chinese. The "yellow peril" syndrome will never
go away in the West even in this day and age. This is the fact that overriding all other factors that
the West accused China of "misbehaving". China should make the fact known to all the world
to see, particularly the Third world. The West will certainly accuse China playing the racial card to
counter their strategies of isolating China. The West can deny their racial prejudices all they want.
They know in the deepest bottom of their hearts, they know such prejudices exist. Ask the Obama
and the black people in the US.

5:45 pm February 9, 2010

John Beigermeyer wrote:

@Sally
As a public forum Lee has just as much right to state an opinion as you. In fact, Lee gave his/her stance in a far more convincing manner than you be refraining from name calling and unsubstantiated claims.

Despite this, I agree with you in some sense. China has been somewhat inconsistent with its definition of "developing country." It seems to use development as justification only when it is immediately beneficial, preferring to be considered a major developed country in all other matters.

However, I think that the real reason that China refused to be legally responsible to any outside authority in Copenhagen is because of the history of oppression that it suffered under at the hands of the west throughout the 20th century. Repeated humiliation in the Opium War and the imperialistic policy that followed pushed China to the point where it will never again allow foreigners to dictate its policy. It was pushed into a corner by the exploitative practices of western countries. Now that it has significant power and influence throughout the world, China will surely fight back against any outside attempts at regulation. In my mind this makes sense, despite my own personal views that we MUST reduce carbon emissions or face significant environmental consequences. Cheers to Gary and all others who respond respectfully and logically.

1:06 am February 26, 2010

Racists wrote:

Racist white people will always frequent the internet. Live with it.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

Expert Insight

New rules on labor negotiations in southern China offer a potential solution to the country's growing problem with labor unrest while at the same time illustrating the difficulty the Communist Party faces in effectively addressing workers’ grievances.

For much of the last half-century, changing China through economic reform seemed to make far better sense than transforming the country through political revolution. Xi Jinping is trying to flip that on its head.

About China Real Time Report

China Real Time Report is a vital resource for an expanding global community trying to keep up with a country changing minute by minute. The site offers quick insight and sharp analysis from the wide network of Dow Jones reporters across Greater China, including Dow Jones Newswires’ specialists and The Wall Street Journal’s award-winning team. It also draws on the insights of commentators close to the hot topic of the day in law, policy, economics and culture. Its editors can be reached at chinarealtime@wsj.com.